From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Thu Feb 20 15:21:48 EST 1992
Article 3838 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 22:03:10 GMT

In article <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>Michael Gemar writes:
>>
>>> When Steven Harnad came to the University of Toronto to give a
>>> colloquium on *his* solution to the Chinese Room, he noted, "Everyone
>>> thinks that defining understanding is so difficult.  Well, here..." at
>>> which point he spouted something entirely incomprehensible in a
>>> non-English language.  "There," he said, "that was Hungarian.  Did you
>>> understand that?  If not, then you know what understanding
>>> involves..."
>>
>>In my opinion, Harnad was being silly. There is a common core of
>>meaning to the word "understand", which is that lack of competence in
>>a language implies lack of understanding. This is the case with my
>>lack of understanding of Hungarian (or Chinese). This common core of
>>meaning does not suffice to answer questions such as "does the Chinese
>>Room understand?"
>>
>I think you're right but not in the way you intended. The question is,
>"Does the Chinese room understand *Chinese*?"

No, the question is "Does the Chinese Room understand the story"?
As I have pointed out in another posting, one may understand the language
(eg. salivate when encountering the word 'hamburger') and still be unable
to answer the question 'has the man eaten the hamburger?'. Opposite is
also possible. That is why it is important to decide what we mean by
understanding in the specific case. Hanard trick detracts audience's
attention from the need to make clear what understanding we are talking about.

>Insofar as I understand, this is the ONLY question relevant to the Chinese
>room. It is the aritificial intelligentsia who have tried to make the
>question obscure. Searle's question was very straightforward, and Harnad's
>explication is dead on.
>
>-- 
>Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
>Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
>University of Toronto
>---------------------


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


